Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. D‑874 of 1981, decided on 8th November, 1982.

S. 15‑‑Eviction proceedings‑Respondent moving application before Rent Controller for joining as legal representative of deceased landlord who died on 20‑10‑1978 when evidence on preliminary issue already closed by Rent Controller and case fixed for order Rent Controller without deciding application of respondent first deciding issue of relationship of landlord and tenant on 4‑3‑1981 Respondent after death to deceased landlord regularly prosecuting case and attending Court‑Grievance of‑ respondent that Rent Controller should not have passed order dated 4‑3‑1981 without first bringing deceased landlord's heirs on record, held, does not make order of Rent Controller void as on that date deceased landlord was represented by respondent.

S. 15‑ Eviction proceedings‑Joining of legal representative‑Con tention that only heirs of deceased landlord and not legal representative can join evidence proceedings before Rent Controller, held, not correct .as definition of landlord in Ordinance includes every person who for time being entitled or authorized to receive rent of premises.

Abdullah v. Mistry Shamsuddin 1982. C L C 787 ref.

S. H. Fani for Petitioner.

M. M. Baig for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 8tb November, 1982.

By this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 4 3‑11981 and 26‑7‑1981 passed by the Xth Rent Controller, Karachi, holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the appellant and the deceased landlord and joining respondent No. I as the legal heirs of .Muhammad Jamil (the deceased landlord.) in the proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Rent Controller was not competent to decide the issue with regard to existence ‑of relationship of landlord and tenant between' the parties as on the date the Controller determined the issue. Muhammad Jamil the deceased landlord was dead and his alleged heir was not added as the party in the case. The admitted position in the case is that Muhammad Jamil died on 20th October, 1978, when the evidence on the preliminary issue was already closed an the case was fixed for orders. Respondent No. I moved an application before the Controller to be joined as the legal representative of the deceased Muhammad Jamil on 6‑1‑1979. However, the Rent Controller without deciding the application of respondent No. I first decided the issue of relationship of landlord and tenant on 4‑3‑1981. It is admitted before us that after the death of Muhammad Jamil, the case was prosecuted by respondent No. I who was regularly attending before the Controller. The grievance of the petitioner before us is that the Rent Controller should not have passed the order dated 4‑3‑198.1 deciding the issue of existence o relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the landlord was already dead and without first bringing his heir on record the proceedings before the Controller were incompetent. The objection raised by the learned counsel is of a highly technical nature. It is an admitted position that on 6‑1‑1979 application was moved by respondent No. I before the Controller to bring her on record as legal representative of deceased Muhammad Jamil, the landlord. The tact that the Court did not disposal of the application of respondent No. I first and decided the issue of relation ship of landlord and tenant between the parties earlier could not make the order void as the deceased landlord was represented in the case or that date through respondent No. 1. We, therefore, find no sub star in the arguments of learned counsel that the order dated 4‑3‑198J, was without jurisdiction as the landlord was dead on that date and his heir was not added in the application before passing the order dated 4‑3‑1981. With respect to the order dated 26‑7.1981 passed by the Controller joining respon dent No. I as the legal representative of the deceased the learned counsel con tended that only the heirs of the landlord and not the legal representative could be joined in the proceedings. In support‑ of his contention be referred us to the case of Abdullah v. Mistry Shamsuddin (1). The contention of the learned counsel is misconceived. The definition of 'Landlord' as give din the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 19 i9 is very wide and it' includes every person B who is for the time being entitled or authorised to receive rent of the premises. Respondent No. I was brought on record by the Controller on the strength of a Succession Certificate granted in her favour by the District Judge, Karachi, holding her an heir of the, deceased. No exception., therefore, could be taken to the order of Controller joining respondent No. I as the legal representative of the deceased. The case of Abdullah cited by the learned counsel is of no assistance to him as it was decided on the basis of the definition of 'tenant as. given in the Ordinance. The learned counsel contends that the Rent Controller should have independently held enquiry into the matter to find out if the respondent No. I was the heir of the deceased landlord before allowing her‑ name to be brought on record as the heir of the deceased. It is not disputed before us that Muhammad Jamil died issueless and is not survived by his parents or full brother or sister. Respondent No. I is admitted to be a step‑sitter of deceased Muhammad Jamil but it is urged that alongwith respondent No. I there are two ‑other step‑brothers of the deceased who are also entitled to inherent the property left behind by deceased Muhammad Jamil. This fact is not admitted by respondent No. I but even if it be so, there is no doubt that Tespondent No. I was one of the heirs ‑ of the deceased landlord Muhammad Jamil and in that capacity she was entitled to be joined in the case and prosecute the same. The learned counsel for respondent No. I informed us that the petitioner has not paid rent of the premises in her occupation for several years and there are at present arrears of rent against her amounting to Rs. 22,000 which she has failed to deposit in Court in spite of the order of Rent Controller and has filed the present petition only to delay the payment of rent. The' arrears of rent and their non‑deposit in Court in spite of the order of Controller is not disputed before us by the learned counsel but it is contended that proceedings before the Controller were stayed by this Court. While admitting this petition to regular hearing only passing of a final order by the Controller was stayed by the Court. There was no stay against the order of deposit of rent. We are, therefore, of the view that petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands and her above conduct disentitled tier to the discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution and for this reason also we are not inclined to interfere.

We accordingly dismiss this petition with costs.

M. Y. M. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.